9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit filed under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside an award. 2. Preliminary issue of whether the suit is barred by time under Sec.34(3) of the Act. 3. Applicability of Sections 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the Act. 4. Exclusion of time under Sec.14 of the Limitation Act for prosecuting the matter in a wrong court. 5. Timeliness of filing the suit before the City Civil Court after return of papers from the previous court. 6. Dismissal of the suit by the lower court based on the issue of limitation. 7. Lack of bonafides and diligence on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the matter. 8. Applicability of provisions of the Limitation Act in the case. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed under Sec.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the plaintiffs to set aside an award made by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department. The suit was filed under Sec.34 of the Act, and the issue arose when the defendants contended that the suit was barred by time for not being filed within 90 days as per Sec.34(3) of the Act. 2. The Prl. District Judge dismissed the suit as barred by time after treating the limitation issue as a preliminary one. The question of limitation was crucial, and similar matters were being heard simultaneously to address this issue. The judgment in a related matter clarified the applicability of Sec.14 of the Limitation Act to exclude time taken in prosecuting a matter in a wrong court. 3. The trial court initially held that none of the provisions of the Limitation Act applied to the petition filed under the Acts. However, the higher court, after considering arguments from all parties, concluded that Sections 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act are indeed applicable to proceedings under the Act. 4. The appellants were found entitled to exclude the time when the arbitration proceedings were pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ramanagaram. It was established that the suit was filed within the period of limitation as provided by the Act, and the exclusion of time was deemed appropriate in this context. 5. The timeliness of filing the suit before the City Civil Court after the return of papers from the previous court was a point of contention. The respondent argued that there was a delay in re-filing the papers, but it was clarified that the delay was not substantial and did not affect the overall timeliness of the filing. 6. The court emphasized the importance of promptly re-filing records returned by one court before another court. The delay in making the necessary endorsements was considered, and it was established that the appellant acted diligently in re-filing the papers before the City Civil Court, Bangalore Rural District. 7. The judgment highlighted the lack of jurisdiction of the first court where the proceedings were initially filed and the subsequent diligent actions of the appellant in rectifying the jurisdictional issue. The court found no lack of bonafides on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the matter. 8. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the lower court's order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the lower court to proceed in accordance with the law, recognizing the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act and the diligent conduct of the appellant in rectifying jurisdictional issues.
|
